CTV Television Inc. v. R. et al.,

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Judge: Scott, C.J.M., Monnin and Steel, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2006 MBCA 132
• Citation: 2006 MBCA 132,(2006), 208 Man.R.(2d) 244 (CA),[2006] 12 WWR 200,214 CCC (3d) 70,[2006] MJ No 403 (QL),148 CRR (2d) 249,208 Man R (2d) 244,71 WCB (2d) 708,[2006] M.J. No 403 (QL),208 ManR(2d) 244,(2006), 208 ManR(2d) 244 (CA),208 Man.R.(2d) 244
• Date: 21 September 2006
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)

CTV v. R. (2006), 208 Man.R.(2d) 244 (CA);

      383 W.A.C. 244

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.009

CTV Television Inc. (applicant/appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen and Erron Troy Hogg (respondents/respondents)

(AI 05-30-06120; 2006 MBCA 132)

Indexed As: CTV Television Inc. v. R. et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M., Monnin and Steel, JJ.A.

November 15, 2006.

Summary:

Hogg was charged with aggravated assault. He gave a videotaped statement to police, which was entered as an exhibit at his preliminary inquiry. Hogg subsequently pled guilty and received a conditional sentence. The conditional sentence was overturned on appeal and a term of imprisonment was imposed. CTV Television Inc. was preparing a program on conditional sentences and it applied to copy and broadcast Hogg's videotaped statement to police. Hogg opposed the application.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 191 Man.R.(2d) 292, dismissed CTV's application. CTV appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered that CTV was entitled to have access to and copy the videotaped statement subject to any condition that court officers might impose to preserve the integrity of the exhibit.

Civil Rights - Topic 2486

Freedom of the press - Limitations - Court proceedings (incl. televising) - Hogg pled guilty to aggravated assault and received a conditional sentence - The conditional sentence was overturned on appeal and a term of imprisonment was imposed - CTV Television Inc. was preparing a program on conditional sentences and it applied to copy and broadcast Hogg's videotaped statement to police, which had been entered as an exhibit at his preliminary inquiry - The application was dismissed - CTV appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered that CTV was entitled to have access to and copy the videotaped statement - The application judge's conclusion, that releasing the videotaped statement would hamper the process of obtaining videotaped statements generally, and therefore hinder the administration of justice, was based on common sense and logic or judicial experience - The judge erred in basing his conclusion on common sense and logic alone, without the benefit of real and substantive evidence - The judge also could be said to have taken judicial notice of facts, and in doing so he erred - The social fact that releasing Hogg's videotaped statement would deter the producing of videotaped statements before the courts should not have been a fact accepted without proof.

Courts - Topic 1443

Administration - Documents filed by parties (incl. videotapes) - Public right of access - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2486 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5363

Evidence and witnesses - Photographs, movies, videotapes, etc. - Public access to - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2486 ].

Evidence - Topic 2230

Special modes of proof - Judicial notice - Particular matters - General principles - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2486 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 188; 335 N.R. 201; 200 O.A.C. 348; 2005 SCC 41, consd. [para. 2].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, consd. [para. 22].

R. v. Mentuck (C.G.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442; 277 N.R. 160; 163 Man.R.(2d) 1; 269 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 76, consd. [para. 22].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; 203 N.R. 169; 182 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 463 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 25].

Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827; 320 N.R. 49; 348 A.R. 201; 321 W.A.C. 201; 2004 SCC 33, dist. [para. 32].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, dist. [para. 32].

R. v. Spence (S.A.), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 458; 342 N.R. 126; 206 O.A.C. 150; 2005 SCC 71, consd. [para. 37].

R. v. Find (K.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863; 269 N.R. 149; 146 O.A.C. 236; 2001 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 38].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Morgan, Edmund M., Judicial Notice (1943-44), 57 Harv. L. Rev. 269, generally [para. 38].

Stuart, Don, Annotation to R. v. Spence, 2005 CarswellOnt 6824, generally [para. 40].

Thayer, James B., Judicial Notice and the Law of Evidence (1889-90), 3 Harv. L. Rev. 285, generally [para. 38].

Counsel:

J.B. Kroft and E.M. Wilcott, for the appellant;

E.A. Thomson, for the respondent, Her Majesty The Queen;

S.A. Inness, for the respondent, E.T. Hogg.

This appeal was heard on September 21, 2006, before Scott, C.J.M., Monnin and Steel, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Monnin, J.A., on November 15, 2006.